Do we overvalue the draft?

I think it is a similar to the problem that Schneed pointed out with JLC's posts on the Skins cap management issues. We are losing sight of the problems in talent evaluation that have plagued many previous Redskins trades and saying ergo trading draft picks is a losing strategy. It would be more accurate to say that trading draft picks of mediocre talent is a losing proposition. Trading picks for Lloyd and Duckett - mistakes. But neither Lloyd or Duckett had demonstrated elite production or been selected to five Pro Bowls.

The issue about cost is perhaps more valid, since it would apparently take $20 mil + in guarantees to lock up CJ. But, the Skins have demonstrated their ability to manipulate the cap with using cash-over-cap so as long as they got 5-6 seasons of high production from Johnson it likely would not cause huge problems. The issues with other guys they have traded for have been the lack of production they have received in return.

I think you could also argue that the Skins have, in the past, undervalued their own picks as compared to the value placed on them by others in the league. Adding a 2nd rounder in the Bailey/Portis deal or giving up a 3rd for Brunell comes to mind. In those instances the production was less a problem then the fact that most teams would not have added a high pick when giving up a comparable talent at a more valuable position or giving up a first day pick for an aging QB. Also remember that disgruntled future HOFers Marshall Faulk and Jerome Bettis were both dealt for 2nd round picks.

Now, having said that, a mid level 1st and a conditional 3rd (with high conditions for escalation) is probably not too high for Johnson (in my estimation). That strikes me as pretty fair compensation. Deion Branch netted the Pats a 1st and he's no Chad Johnson. Wes Welker and Javon Walker went for 2nds. Probably the most comparable trade we have is the first Randy Moss deal, which netted the Vikings the 7th overall pick and Napoleon Harris. So I think you can make arguments against the trade, but the firmest ground to stand on, I think, is cap ramifications. I really don't think you can say the Redskins are selling the farm in their proposal. I think there are at least several teams who would also make that sort of deal for Johnson, so here I don't think the Skins are bidding against themselves (as they have in the past).

This is a good thread, and to echo your sentiments, I think we do over value draft picks, not so much the draft. I particularly feel all the hype around the first round is just hype.

I think the trap the Redskins have/had fallen into was a cycle of targeting and building through free agency and placed too low of a premium on the draft in general. I've maintained all of along, save three or four top flight NFL teams, the Redskins haven't had any more free agency mis-cues than the next team. They've had more high profile free agents, perhaps, that haven't panned out. There's just got blown out of proportion because of Danny's reputation as a spender and the media's penchent for "I told you so". Simply put, I think the Skins have just been out of balance somewhat with their approach.

I don't think you can build entirely usuing one approach at the expense of the other. As much praise as the Patriots get, they have their share of free agents.

i think it all boils down to who is making the picks, and evaluating the talent. a good general manager, that makes the right picks, can never over value the draft.

I am aware that the Patriots have done that. They already had an entrenched system that allowed them to do that. Look further than last year for them and you will see that their most of their roster is made up of homegrown stars that were hand picked by their coaching staff.

The Redskins are by no means even close to being at the point where they can give up picks for a big signing or two to get them to be a dominant force in the league. If you've seen the depth on team I think you would agree. Just look at our draft needs posted by every analyst in the NFL and you will see that we need almost every position on our team addressed in some way.

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).

I would venture to say people dont have a problem trading for talent. The problem is that you cant live by it. A top ten pick is a huge huge contract. but after that the players are cheap for many years.

we trade our picks every year. yes somehow we always are under the cap. but we force our players to change their contracts. they dont have to, one day they may not.

The draft is a risk, but a cheap way to get talent. and it keeps your team young.

Id love to get CJ, or Allen... but it wouldnt hurt to acutally use our draft picks for once, save some money, hope to get talent...

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).


we have home grown talent, but look at your list and break it down to where we got them

1st round - Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Samuels
2nd - Smoot, Betts, jansen, Cooley (yes we picked him in the 3rd but we gave up a second)

the rest of those players arent starters... or were only starters because of injury.

If anything I think your list proves we evaluate talent well in the early rounds...but not in the later ones at all...

The goal is to add talent for the future in the best possible way. Sometimes, you can trade for a 23 year old Running Back with his best years ahead of him. The problem is, it's incredibly difficult to get players who aren't already at the peak of their career through free agency.

The good thing about draft picks (not in the top 5, but after that) is that for the cost of nothing (money wise) you can get top end NFL talent that will improve over the life of their rookie contracts. The picks in themselves are worth nothing, but you can't get talent that will improve unless you have them.

You have to add a veteran talent if you can get him at a bargain price. That's how winning franchises are built. Established talent is a very safe bet to continue success in the short term, but also are a safe bet to begin declining as soon as they are signed.

The draft in terms of importance, is as a whole, valued properly. By the end of the rookie contract (at least a 5 or 6 year contract), a team has already gotten most of the best games out of a player, and is often wise to let him walk if they can replace him for less money.

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).

I wouldn't necessarily call Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Wilson homegrown stars. Just the fact that you named them as such warrants a call for using our high draft picks on premier talent. Though I like those guys and want to see them do well, I wouldn't bring their name up in a talent discussion.

In the spectrum of acquiring free agents and drafting new players, the Skins have been free agent heavy for the last couple years. Like Mattyk72 said it is all about striking a balance in that spectrum. Especially with a new coach we should be looking to solidify our roster with young, coachable players that fit Zorn's scheme.

I didn't call them stars. I called them talent. Talent that have been able to step up when needed, and provide depth to the team.

And wide receiver is a need, and Chad Johnson happens to be one of the best WRs in the league. It's not like we're talking about trading a first rounder for Matt Leinart. Trading a pick for him doesn't mean we're ignoring our needs or that we don't have 8 more picks this year with which to address more needs.

Furthermore, let's not act like we have no homegrown talent (Campbell, Rogers, Landry, Doughty, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer, Samuels, Jansen, Betts, Cooley, Wilson, Smoot; to name a few).Chad Johnson fills a pretty big need, but how long would it be until we are paying him a fortune to be a mediocre--or just a bit better than that--player? 2010 perhaps?

I mean, look at Torry Holt right now. There's a guy who is past the prime of his career, and wouldn't have a lot of trade value if he was shopped. Chad Johnson is two years younger than Holt, and they've had similar career paths. If Johnson is no longer in the top 20 NFL receivers by 2010, is a first round draft pick for him actually worth it?

I mean the value of a year or two, maybe three if we are lucky of an elite receiver then 3 more years of mediocrity can't cost us more than a second round draft pick. It's classic mortgaging the future...and we are probably a year away from a Super Bowl caliber passing game with or without Chad Johnson.